User talk:Billybostickson: Difference between revisions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

If you have any procedural questions about these notifications, please ask them before continuing to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree I would like you to explain why the second ban was sent within 28 minutes of the first one, thus effectively gagging me, without a warning. Clearly you are an experienced admin and must know the correct procedures, so I feel an explanation is warranted. For example, which edit of mine provoked the second ban? Next, I would like you to answer the following 6 questions (for context kindly see below the questions:

1. Is it appropriate WP behaviour for someone who rverts a user's edit without giving a reasonable explanation to then "ping an uninvolved admin" (you) to find a "solution" to what was obviously a minor issue. 2. If a user accuses me of "attacking" an admin, which is patently false, I believe I have the right to respond on the page where the accusation is made, is that correct? 3. Thus, why did you delete twice my contribution on the admin noticeboard page which responded to the false claims. 4. If you look at my contributions on that page about Draft Covid-19 lab leak, all my contributions were polite, helpful and in line with WP rules, so why did you accuse me of "persistently causing disruption and ignoring community concerns about your behavior in this area, this time by edit warring"? 5. It is good that I have been unblocked and unbanned, but I would like to have my response on the admi9n noticeboard page undeleted, can you do that? can I do that? Please clarify. Thank you. 6. Finally, as mentioned before, I would like you to explain why the second ban was sent within 28 minutes of the first one, thus effectively gagging me, without a warning.

The edit I wished to make (which you ~ ToBeFree reverted twice) was to clarify a false accusation of "an attack" on an admin after I merely reminded the admin of the heading at the top of the page regarding "voting" in a polite way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis

It is all quite clear here:

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that. Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish. . And please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text. To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

I've managed to find an archive. Does anyone know who I should send this privately to? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I've emailed an archived link to Boing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk) I have zero interest in your identity and whether it is real or fake, that's not my business. As for me, yes I am using a pseudonym as I explained to you above. Do you have a problem with that? If there is a random Twitter account that you found while trying to WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND me, and the Twitter handle looks like my pseudonym, again that is not my business, nor should it be yours. Kindly refrain from WP:HOUND and threatening WP:OUTING. I will be inclined to report this threatening behaviour if it continues. Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk sorry , I do not understand what you mean by "pinging an uninvolved admin". Is this related to your deletion of my comment here which you justified with "ZBB is an Admin"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1006437415 Billybostickson (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Billybostickson (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty chaotic; the following answer is in response to the seven questions at the top of your message.

• The edit that seemed to make a block necessary was your second edit after my notification. After making the first of these edits, you have been notified about new messages on your talk page, by an orange banner and a red notification alert. I assumed that you had seen them or actively ignored them, and in both cases, a block would have been necessary to prevent further similar contributions. I agree that this is a debatable decision and that a warning could have achieved the same result.

1. Yes, asking for an uninvolved administrator's input can be a reasonable thing to do in such cases, especially in areas that are prone to disruptive editing even from experienced users. COVID-19 is such an area. This is why
   WP:GS/COVID19 exists. A relevant guideline when making such a decision can be WP:Canvassing
   , but pinging a single uninvolved administrator to a stalled noticeboard discussion is fine.
2. Generally, yes. That is, until persistent repetition of the same views/arguments (
   WP:EW
   ) happen.
3. I believed that you had been correctly
   WP:BANEX
   for the very limited exceptions, which did not apply.
4. This is because you have been edit warring by repeatedly re-inserting a removed comment that was removed in good faith,
   ignoring community concerns
   about your edit.
5. I strongly advise against further pushing in this regard, as your message has very likely been read by everyone you attempted to reach. However, you are not currently prohibited from doing so, and would not be topic banned just for re-inserting the message. I have removed your message based on an incorrect decision, so re-instating it can be a reasonable thing to do. A much more helpful approach for the whole debate is described at
   WP:DISENGAGE
   .
6. I have incorrectly assumed that you had previously been alerted about the sanctions in this area. See the bullet point above "1." for details.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ~ ToBeFreeThank you for helping to clarify that, I understand some of your explanations, but one seems not correct: "this is because you have been edit warring by repeatedly re-inserting a removed comment that was removed in good faith,

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to clarify what happened.Billybostickson (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for the incorrect block and you're welcome,

accountability reasons, I need to address the concern regarding the edit war, since this is what has caused the entire sanction in the first place: I believe that neither RandomCanadian nor PaleoNeonate have reverted your edit in bad faith. I agree that it was an unnecessary comment, disruptively making a point by teaching grandmother to suck eggs. I personally wouldn't have removed it, but adding the same comment three times against the concerns of two other users is edit warring. A reasonable approach would be waiting a few hours, thinking about the comment again, and then talking to the removing user if the removal still seems unreasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

You are

topic banned

from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community.

You have been sanctioned for persistently

WP:ASPERSIONS), such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the

administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the need for the ban in your very first edit after it has been placed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Billybostickson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for effectively gagging me from seeking dispute resolution.

1. It is clear that I constructively engaged editors on the Talk Page in lieu of adding my contribution, which is an accurate, well sourced, truthful and timely quote from the Director General of the WHO and a statement by professor John watson on BBC confirming the same.

2. Instead of engaging in edit wars or other childish behaviour, i politely discussed my proposed contribution with the editors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Deletion of a clarification by the Director General of the WHO on February 12th (less than 5200 words).

3. After civilised discussion, consensus was not reached so I asked for Dispute Resolution at the relevant noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

4. Imagine my surprise when you turned up like a bad penny again on the noticeboard and gagged me from what is considered to be a means to solve disputes, by saying the following: "I have now banned the editor from the topic area, please close this section. They can't participate in the dispute resolution process anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021"

5. Very helpful, I'm sure! Next point, the alleged reason for the block was "for making personal attacks towards other editors". However, this is contrary to the facts, as

6. It was other editors who falsely and maliciously accused me of "attacking an admin" and they have yet to apologise.

7. I specifically and politely asked for dispute resolution as per WP rules, which you appear to be attempting to subvert by asking for my dispute resolution request to be deleted then blocking and banning me, thus preventing me from contributing to the dispute resolution process.

8. Now, moving on to the ban you imposed, your reasons were as follows: "You have been sanctioned for persistently

WP:ASPERSIONS), such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

."

9. "persistently

ignoring community concerns

about your edits" This is a barefaced lie as I deliberately chose not to edit the Article Page and instead discussed the proposed contribution on the Article Talk page. Kindly delete that false accusation immediately.

10. "pushing

fringe theories

" Again this another barefaced lie. After my original inclusion of the Director General of the WHO's quoted clarification regarding all hypothese remaining on the table (which is accurate, valid and timely), I chose not to attempt to add it again, thus avoiding "pushing WP:FRINGE, instead I chose to discuss logically and politely with editors on the Talk Page in line with WP recommendations. So, again, kindly delete that false accusation immediately.

11. "persistently

WP:ASPERSIONS

)" You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "persistent'. But, yes it does seem that they and you are in fact biased against any mention of "lab leak theory", which has not been debunked, nor has the WHO rejected it, nor is their scientific consensus rejecting it. I suggest you stop conflating "lab leak theory" with "bioweapon theory" as they are two different things as anyone with half a brain understands.

12. So yes, there has been a biased attempt by gatekeepers to conflate a valid theory with a debunked one.

13. The valid "lab leak theory" is currently being given due weight by the WHO and many respected Scientists, including Ebright, Lentzos, Sirotkin, Leitenberg, Relman (who worked with WIV to improve biosafety in 207-2018). they all consider a lab leak possible and quite likely and some have called for an investigation of laboratories in Wuhan. A case in point can be found here:

"The data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain."

From: Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

14. Finally, the original dispute was about the statement of the Director General of the WHO and confirmation of this by Professor John Watson on the BBC today:

Here it is:

"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."

"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-member-states-briefing-on-covid-19---11-february-2021

15. It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses", including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.

https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Virus_Outbreak_China_WHO_Mission_94779.jpg?w=1080

16. There seems to be intent to misinterpret the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accuse him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute.

17. Nobody except for some Wikipedia editors seem to have any doubt about the meaning of Dr. Tedros's statement:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/all-hypotheses-on-covid-19-origins-still-being-investigated-says-who-boss

The background which informs the statement can be understood here:

"A spokesperson for the WHO says the mission will be guided by science, and “will be open-minded, iterative, not excluding any hypothesis that could contribute to generating evidence and narrowing the focus of research”."

Where did COVID come from? WHO investigation begins but faces challenges https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9

and the WHO Tors (China Side)

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf

and

https://www.who.int/nepal/activities/supporting-elimination-of-kala-azar-as-a-public-health-problem/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version

18. So, to recap, many Scientists, such as Ebright, Leitenberg, Fumanski, Relman, Sirotkin, Decroly, Lentzos, van Helden, Canard, etc, have come out with support for the lab leak theory:

http://www.ianbirrell.com/world-experts-condemn-who-inquiry-as-a-charade/

19. Multiple news media sources have the courage and determination to pursue the lab leak theory as a plausible, indeed likely hypothesis:

https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257413/Secret-bat-cages-Wuhan-lab-researchers-planned-breed-animals-virus-experiments.html

As have AP, BBC, Le Monde, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, Taiwan News, L'Equipe, etc.

Now Professor John Watson from the WHO team has confirmed on BBC News that all hypotheses are still on the table and in response to a specific question from the interviewer that the lab leak hypothesis has not been ruled out.

See: Prof John Watson on Wuhan Covid origins (BBC Politics). Andrew Marr. Most Sundays from 9am on BBC One

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1360885644600373255/vid/1280x720/ZZYs8_GsMda1GB_9.mp4

20. Will you be saying that Professor Watson is WP:FRINGE now? Or the BBC is not a valid source?

21. When people read these articles and watch the news stories, then come here to have a check, they will be astounded at how a handful of biased editors and admins are dedicating themselves to making WP a laughing stock.

22. I have tried to make this all as clear as possible to avoid misunderstanding and insist that you remove both the block and ban forthwith and I would like an apology for false accusations from you, User:RandomCandadian and User: Paleoneonate.

23.I also request that you commit to an improvement plan which will help you to free yourself from bias, act in a more helpful manner and avoid bullying and malicious attempts to gag contributors and prevent them from seeking dispute resolution.

24. Kindly provide coherent information on how to proceed with this request if you are unable to think rationally. Billybostickson (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is way too long. I suggest you post a new unblock request, this time keeping it to around 100 or 200 words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The topic ban appeal portion of your appeal is hereby rejected; feel free to appeal to the community after the block. The block is unrelated.

talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Billbybostickson, no admin wants to read that long, off-point, and problematic unblock request, and if they do read it, they aren't unblocking you in response. Your unblock request has all the same problematic behaviors that got you unblocked in the first place. If you really want to ask to be unblocked, I suggest you read very carefully the guide to appealing blocks, which the block notice point you at but which is at

WP:Assuming good faith and reading various talk pages to see how those policies are interpreted. If you throw about terms like 'falsely and maliciously' and 'barefaced lie' and 'anyone with half a brain understands' and 'bullying and malicious attempts to gag contributors' and 'if you are unable to think rationally', you are likely to end up indefinitely blocked and without access to your talk page. If you can't interact civilly with other editors when you disagree with them, we really don't need your help. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Pretty much. Per the block log, you are blocked for making personal attacks. You're either going to need to make the case (in a clear, concise, and convincing fashion) that you did not make personal attacks, or make the case that you will not make them moving forward. I'm willing to look at your case as a neutral admin, if you can make a far shorter case that addresses the block itself.

@ToBeFree: would you mind linking to the diff of the personal attack so that the reviewing admin doesn't have to search for it, please? SQL^{Query me!} 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The straw that broke the camel's back is Special:Diff/1006770097 at WP:AN, beginning with "I can only conclude that you both failed to read", continuing with "you both continue to make perverse and false accusations", alleging "delusion", excluding the addressed person from the group "anyone with intelligence", alleging "childish bully boy tactics", and alleging malice. However, there is a longer history of disruptive personalization of disputes, such as in Special:Diff/1005968425 at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, where a disagreeing discussion participant is called "a sockpuppet and troll who is deliberately sabotaging this page and refusing to engage in honest discourse" and requested to be banned "from further edits and malicious behaviour which puts Wikipedia into disrepute", nothing of which is true. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the problem is that this newish editor is used to interacting online in places that allow people to talk to one another like that, and they've become so inured to it that they don't understand what we're objecting to. Billybostickson, we don't talk to one another that way here. Ideally we interact with one another as if we're in the headquarters office of a Fortune 500 workplace. If you wouldn't say it to your co-workers in front of someone from Human Resources and your boss, you shouldn't say it to other editors here. This isn't Reddit or 4chan or Parler. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee I am not North American and I don't use Reddit, 4Chan or Parler, so I don't know what you are talking about now. What I do know is that you deliberately tried to belittle my claim of racist abuse by an admin involved in gagging me. If you tried doing that in a Fortune 500 Company you would not last long. So, please when someone complaims about racist taunting, take their complaints seriously instead of dismissing them, and never attempt to gloss over such actions with mealy mouthed platitudes about circuses. It just makes it worse, don't you understand that? Billybostickson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Thank you for taking time to come here and comment. If you read the relevant Talk Page you will see that I engaged in polite discussion until i was falsely accused of attacking an admin. I complained but was gagged by an admin who then blocked and banned me and destroyed my dispute resolution request. I have the patience of a saint, but this going beyond the pale. Now I have been racially abused, what would you like me to do? Bend Over and ask WP admins to abuse me further?

@ToBeFree: Thank you for offering to help, I appreciate it.

Regarding allegations of personal attack:

I engaged in polite discussion until i was falsely accused of attacking an admin by two users RandomCanadian and PaleoNeonate. This was a false accusation which has been repeated by the users:

"I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —[[User:PaleoNeonate"

There was no attack, a humorous admonishment if anything:

"(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee"

"If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

and I deliberately refrained from reverting edits, instead taking the discussion to the Talk Page as requested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billybostickson

I complained but was gagged by an admin who then blocked and banned me and destroyed my dispute resolution request.

I have the patience of a saint, but this going beyond the pale.

Now I have been racially abused, what would you like me to do? Bend Over and ask WP admins to abuse me further?

I have written to the Arbitration Committee to ask for help as I have been subject to racist abuse.

I am a little new to Wikipedia and have tried my level best to adhere to the rules and communicate as politely as possible under the circumstances.

I have also been subject to racist abuse, after being called a Monkey by another admin who collaborated in deleting my humble request for dispute resolution.

"The topic ban appeal portion of your appeal is hereby rejected; feel free to appeal to the community after the block. The block is unrelated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

I thought that an independent admin would review it, but it was the same admin who blocked and banned me (ToBeFree)

why I have been gagged and prevented from seeking dispute resolution here?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

by the same admin (ToBeFree)

"Note: I have now banned the editor from the topic area, please close this section. They can't participate in the dispute resolution process anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

This was the same admin who was pinged before as "a solution" by a group of editors who were trying to gag me:

"@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)"

Mu dispute resolution request which was correctly prepared by notifying all the involved editors on their talk pages was then removed by "NightenBelle"

"filing editor is now topic banned. Problem solved. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

This person subsequently called me a monkey on their talk page which is racial harassment and cannot be allowed on WP or elsewheres:

"Problem solved

Yes. It doesn't matter whether we say that the editor was causing the problem or that the editor was the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

"The lab leak case was easier than the case of the Romani Hungarians. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

"LOL perhaps both? Some otherwise perfetly reasonable editors just can't avoid chasing certain carrots when they are dangled in front of them. But.... no longer monkeys in our particiular tent of the WP circus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle#Problem_solved

Regarding the future, I am always in favour of polite dialogue so can guarantee not to admonish users if they too engage in polite discourse. Billybostickson (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block is about your behavior, not others' behavior. See

WP:NOTTHEM for advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Billybostickson, you'll have much better luck if you stay very, very brief. Robert McClenon wasn't calling you a monkey. He was referring to the phrase Not my circus, not my monkeys which simply means 'not my business.' Pinging an uninvolved admin is what you are supposed to do when you need help with a behavioral issue. Let's see, going through the complaints...gagged; no, you aren't gagged. You can still seek dispute resolution by asking for another editor to post to AN for you. ToBeFree is still an uninvolved admin, you don't necessarily get a new one for every new issue. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Do you know anything about Racism and how to deal with complaints of Racism?

How dare you try to belittle my perception of a racist slur used against me. This will be dealt with by the appropriate WP authorities, so please refrain from further comments here which are likely to aggravate the situation. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson, you're talking to an administrator who is dealing with the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ToBeFree said. I am that brand-new admin you were asking for. Not sure how that aggravates anything, but if you reject help from an uninvolved admin, no other admins are likely to try. —valereee (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context, by the way, is Special:Diff/1006778219, by Nightenbelle, not Robert McClenon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. I have now sent an email to the Arbitration Committee to inform of them of racist taunting and admins trying to explain it away. I also find your response disturbing and as you are included in my formal complaint, I suggest you go elsewhere until this issue is resolved. Your contribution is not very helpful, but thank you anyway for your time and energy. Billybostickson (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL^{Query me!} and NinjaRobotPirate Thank you for your advice.

{{unblock reviewed|reason=I have been falsely accused of attacking and admin and attacking editors. I engaged in polite discussion until I was falsely and repeatedly accused of attacking an admin by 2 users RandomCanadian & PaleoNeonate: "I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block, —[[User:PaleoNeonate" There was no attack, a humorous admonishment if anything: "(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee" "If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!" Re: "You have been sanctioned for persistently ignoring community concerns about your edits, pushing fringe theories and persistently accusing others of malice and bias, such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard." 1. I have not persistently ignored community concerns about my edits, in fact I refrained from making any on the Article and engaged in discussion on the Talk Page as requested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Deletion%20of%20a%20clarification%20by%20the%20Director%20General%20of%20the%20WHO%20on%20February%2012th%20(less%20than%205200%20words) 2. I have not pushed WP:FRINGE in any way, I merely fact checked a false claim by suggesting a quote from the DG of the WHO and Professor John Watson was included. How is this pushing WP:FRINGE? 3. Yes, I have accused others of bias because it is clear from the discussion that they are indeed biased. If bias exists, it should be called out, as is the case now with exactly the same issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#WHO's%20update%20on%20the%20Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20hypothesis I hope this edited text is short enough. Thank you Billybostickson (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]